PonyFans.com

SMU MUSTANGS (3-7, 3-4 WAC)
DALLAS COWBOYS (6-7, 3-6 NFC)

You be the judge.

MrMustang1965 wrote:SMU MUSTANGS (3-7, 3-4 WAC)
DALLAS COWBOYS (6-7, 3-6 NFC)

You be the judge.

SMU

If they give us KK back we beat em!

Cowboys are 3-7, not 6-7.

Ponies -- we have the better Romo!

Corso wrote:Cowboys are 3-7, not 6-7.

Ponies -- we have the better Romo!

Corso: Beg to differ, my friend. From the Dallas Cowboys web site.

Cowboys wins this year have been against: Oakland, Tennesse, Kansas City, Cleveland, Washington and Detroit. (That's 6 wins).

Cowboys losses this year have been to: Houston, Minnesota, NY Giants, Pittsburgh, Green Bay, Cincinnati and Philadelphia. (That's 7 losses).

Hence, 6-7 record (for the entire year, pre-season and conference play).

If you're not counting 'pre-season' games then the Cowboys are 3-6.

Cowboys season wins have been against: Cleveland, Washington and Detroit. (That's 3 wins).

Cowboys season losses have been to: Minnesota, NY Giants, Pittsburgh, Green Bay, Cincinnati and Philadelphia. (That's 6 losses.)

Hence, 3-6 record. (only conference play)

I *do* agree that the Mustangs have the better Romo!

But for the generosity of the referees in the Redskins game the Cowgirls would be 5-8.

But for the generosity of those refs in Washington - and with the reality of the fact that preseason games are meaningless moneymakers for the owners - they'd be 2-8.

EastStang wrote:But for the generosity of the referees in the Redskins game the Cowgirls would be 5-8.

Well, at least Dallas' slimebag owner is better than Washington's slimbag owner. )

It is amazing anyone would discuss a comparison of Cowboys to Ponies. In fact, the problem with the Pokes is the ‘old school’ approach Parcell brings to the game. It’s old & lame in today’s spread offensive scheme. Last year was an accident- the ball bounced their way almost each time.

Now, don’t fire up your pc to challenge me with stats—we know Parcell won Superbowls with incredible “D” ala Lawrence Taylor, et al. Fine.

The argument is today’s game of football has passed him and others by. Those who would lecture all of us about Parcell's winning record would be the same who would have espoused how Lombardi would soon have the Redskins into the Packers of their Glory days. Of course, it did not happen. The game changes... Those are the same members who said Landry was about to turn the tables when Jones replaced him with "JJ". The game changes.

Today, an equal SMU number now keep clamoring for Switzer— yet, his results would be equally dismal. The game changes... Coaches seldom do. Plus, we have no AK-47’s to keep the Switzer ‘type’ recruits (Bosworth, etc) occupied between classes.

Just win, Bennett, baby. Just win.
--------------------------------------

"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH"

Col. Nathan R. Jessep wrote:It is amazing anyone would discuss a comparison of Cowboys to Ponies. In fact, the problem with the Pokes is the ‘old school’ approach Parcell brings to the game. It’s old & lame in today’s spread offensive scheme. Last year was an accident- the ball bounced their way almost each time.

Now, don’t fire up your pc to challenge me with stats—we know Parcell won Superbowls with incredible “D” ala Lawrence Taylor, et al. Fine.

The argument is today’s game of football has passed him and others by. Those who would lecture all of us about Parcell's winning record would be the same who would have espoused how Lombardi would soon have the Redskins into the Packers of their Glory days. Of course, it did not happen. The game changes... Those are the same members who said Landry was about to turn the tables when Jones replaced him with "JJ". The game changes.

Today, an equal SMU number now keep clamoring for Switzer— yet, his results would be equally dismal. The game changes... Coaches seldom do. Plus, we have no AK-47’s to keep the Switzer ‘type’ recruits (Bosworth, etc) occupied between classes.

Just win, Bennett, baby. Just win.
--------------------------------------

"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH"

We all know how the "new school" method of coaching with spread offenses work, just ask Steve Spurrier about his Fun and Gun experiment in the NFL.
Talk all you want about how "things have passed him by" but the reality is that to win in the NFL you have to have 2 things...1)a solid running game that can control the time of possesion and 2)a great defense. Save for the Rams(who were called the "greatest show on turf" but had a great running game with Faulk), look at the past Super Bowl winners. New England isn't really a "spread offense." Yeah, they'll bust out all sorts of sets with Brady as QB and his WRs but they also run the ball to take time off the clock and play terrific defense. The Bucs? It wasn't with their anemic passing game. It was their defense. The Ravens? Jamal Lewis and their killer(no pun intended) defense are what won them games.
You can talk about how "old school" he in today's NFL it's not the fancy offenses that win it for you, it's the tough defenses and solid running games that win it.

Actually Lombardi took a consistent 3-5 win team, the Redskins, and got them up to .500. Then he died. Then came George Allen and the rest is history.

Tuna would love to have Rolando Humphrey -- or Charles Akinyemi or Brandon Jones or Jonathan Lindley, for that matter -- playing right CB, opposite Terence Newman!

Let's remember that the Patriots (Belicheck) coach is a Parcells disciple. And coaches in almost exactly the same manner.